2009/1/3 Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: leo waaijers <leowaa -- xs4all.nl> > Date: Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 12:49 PM > Subject: Re: The Liege IR Mandate is definitely (Immediate Deposit/Optional > Access -- Dual Deposit/Release) (fwd) > To: JISC-REPOSITORIES -- jiscmail.ac.uk > > > Dear Klaus Graf, > > I think this debate is useless. I read your lengthy comment and ultimately > your point is that the Liège Mandate does not go beyond the well known fair > use clause. I think you are right; the Liège is converting 'fair use' into > 'smart use'. It is a non-confronting endeavour to bypass the proprietary > review process of the big publishing houses. Why calling it nonsense? It is > just one way to better access to knowledge and Stevan Harnad and Bernard > Rentier are strong believers in it. So, please Klaus Graf, what's your > point? > > Leo Waaijers. > >
Read my contribution in German at http://archiv.twoday.net I have given enough arguments that the legal framework of Liege ORBi is not valid or misleading. I didn't say anything on the policy/the mandate. If we have the BBB definition of OA we should avoid the impression that everybody can interprete it as he likes. ORBi's license has nothing to do with the OA definition of the Budapest Open Access Initiative although it is referring to it in a very misleading way. BBB has the aim to remove permission barriers, but ORBi - not allowing derivative works or commercial use - gives by referring to BOAI the false impression it is LIBRE OA. Almost all contents in "green" OA repositories are'nt LIBRE, that's not the point.For few exceptions see http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/01-02-09.htm chapter 9 It cannot be accepted that a "legal license" referring to the principles of BOAI simply means that the normal Belgian copyright (and its exceptions) is valid. It's a sort of fraud. Klaus Graf